Fuji XF 150-600mm f/5.6-8 R LM OIS WR lens review
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 พ.ย. 2023
- I LOVE bird photography so I definitely couldn't pass up the chance to test out this little monster with an X-T5.
Find it here (Amazon affiliate link - thanks for your support):
geni.us/Fuji150600
Support me on Patreon! / christopherfrost
All pictures taken by me on a Fuji X-T5 camera.
Equipment I use to make my videos (Amazon affiliate links):
Canon EOS R5: geni.us/CanonEOSR5Body
Canon EF-RF Adaptor: geni.us/CanonEFtoRF
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 'Art': geni.us/Sigma50mm14Art
Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM: geni.us/CanonRF35mm18Macro
Marumi Fit and Slim CPL Filter: geni.us/MarumiFitSlim77
AudioTechnica AT2020USB+ Microphone: geni.us/AT2020USBPlusMic
Rode Smartlav+ Microphone: geni.us/RodeSmartLavalierPlus
Rode SC3 adapter: geni.us/RodeSC3MicAdaptor
Zoom H1n Recorder: geni.us/ZoomH1nMiniRecorder
DJI Mini 2 Drone: geni.us/DJIMini2FlyMore
Music:
'Opportunity Walks', Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons.org/licenses/b... - แนวปฏิบัติและการใช้ชีวิต
Greetings from Seattle! Long time viewer here don't think I've ever commented before on one of your videos and I wanted to tell you your reviews are second to none! I really appreciate the time and effort that you put into them.
I agree.
In fact, many people, from various countries, also fully agree.
@@robertcudlipp3426 I figured as such.
❤❤❤❤
Got the XT5 & the XH2s a few months ago and the 150-600 and absolutely love it. Coming from decades with Canon and the past 8 years with Olympus. Sold everything and switched to the Fuji world and no regrets.
I have to say, those are some of the very nicest bird photos I've seen from this lens. Really nice showing.
Thanks Chris! I have this lens on my radar and might pull the trigger soon for my X-T5.
Good to see you doing Bird Photography!
As the proud owner of one, and an X-T5, indeed this thing is jsut FANTASTIC. Fun fact: If you pair it with Fuji's 2x Teleconverter, your maximum zoom is now 1800mm and you can get some excellent planetary astrophotography and Deep Sky shooting if you so wish..... after some stacking. Alas. Lol.
Actually incredibly silly.
Hi Chris, thanks very much for this and your 56mm f1.2 Mk 2 reviews. You and Fujifilm will be costing me a fortune!! Seriously though, your bird photos are super and I love the colours of these Fuji lens/camera combinations.
Love the review! It even does well with portraits!
I was waiting for this review :D
Another great one! Keep up the good work.
Definitely gonna get one now. Especially because of the 400 euro cashback promotion that's currently active!
Always a great review Chris! I still have XT2 and 20 on my bag. But I am not in rush. It still does what I do and still happy with it .
Excellent setup
Just got a three month old for 1000. Can’t be so happier. It works quite well on my XT5 and teleconverter 1.4x
crazy deal!
Happy to see that you finally had a chance to check out this lens! I love mine.. I just wish I could take it to urban environments without looking like I'm stalking celebrities 😥
thanks a lot sir…. waited a long long time for this video ❤❤❤❤❤❤
Seems like this lens is best shot at f/8 throughout the zoom range on an X-T5/X-H2. Defraction didn't look too bad to my eyes, nothing a little dehaze or contrast correction wouldn't solve in post.
Actually pics are amazing for non FF body
@@deejayiwan7 Fuji knows what they’re doing when it comes to APSC. I switched over from Nikon FF 4 years ago and have never been left wanting. Especially now with the X-H2.
as always nice review!!!
Yay! Glad to see this review
Chris I have no idea how you can even use your test chart on a FF equivalent of 900mm lol. Wouldn't you have to be so far that you'd get softness just from like the air between you and the test chart?
It’s so sharp!
Hi from Qatar!
I’ve been using this lens for a year and a half, and I completely agree with you. It is superb value for money considering its reach on an APS-C body. It’s IS really is fantastic. A great birding lens. I do wish it had a brighter aperture, but considering the 200mm is more than twice the price at 1/3 the reach, I’m good.
Great review.
Do you have large hands? You make this lens (and the XF200mmF2) look tiny.
I bought this lens shortly after it came out. The aperture full-frame equivalent is not great and the defraction issue is a huge bummer. In the end, with good light and stepping down a 1/3 stop or so, it’s pleasant and sharp. I’ve only shot it with the xT5, but I hear using it with the x-H2s is a better experience and with less defraction. The lens is very light and manageable, which makes it great for long hikes vs my full-frame lenses.
Do you view all your photos at 100% Why care about diffraction so much?
@@opalyankaBG because it's a big deal, when birding often you need to crop image, if diffraction kills quality there nothing to crop because no details, if there nothing to crop with extreme 40mpixel then what the point to have such sensor?
@@PatrickWithCamera If you're constantly cropping then you're not using the right focal length. Isn't 600mm enough? If you're cropping a 26 mp image then you'll be left with a smaller end result in terms of pixels so I fail to see what improvement you'll get.
@@opalyankaBG Unfortunately, I do not make bunkers waiting for the animal to come to me, nor do I wear camouflage. I take photos and videos while walking through the forest, and in such cases the animal is rarely so close that I can fill the frame, even at 600mm + 1.5 crop factor.
If I bunkered and waited for hours, even 300mm would probably be enough ;)
Have you considered that, having bought just after release, that you might have an iffy example?
I honestly can't fault mine, after using my 100-400 for 6 years I find a definite improvement in iq; shooting wide open.
Will you be reviewing the xt5 Chris? Would love to see what you think compared to your xt3
I should advise everyone who’s planning to get this lens. I bought mine last January and seldomly used it for some birds photography. Then yesterday, out of the blue, when I turned it on, the error “turn off the camera and turn on again” came up. I tried mounting the lens on my xt4 and xh2, same error. I tried different lenses on both cameras, no issues. I guess the 150-600 lens’ contact might be the problem. Unfortunately, it’s still saturday and the service center will be open on monday. I wish they can get it fixed because I really enjoyed using it.
I have a problem when I zoom in the lens will black out and I can hear a noise coming from inside the lens I'm wondering if it is a contact issue. The mount doesn't lock on tight you can move it a little by hand.
Hello Chris love your videos, please do review on fuji 8-16 f2.8. we are waiting for your review. Thank you
I use this with an XT3 with first rate results hand held with a pistol grip and remote trigger. Even better with XS10. Superb.
Hi Chris, I never buy a lens without seeing your review first - THANKS! But how did you shoot your test chart with a 900mm equivalent lens? You must have a VERY big testing room ;-)
Hoping you can make reviews about Tamron 150-500 and Sigma 100-400 for Fujifilm.
Had the Tamron for my xt3 and really liked it. A bit less reach but still plenty for 95% of situations and 2/3 stops faster than this lens at almost half the cost. Much better close focus / mag ratio (1:3).. it is telescoping so easier to pack but also more likely to suck in dust particles. IQ is very good, probably between the 2 Fuji super tele zooms. Tons of reviews for E mount, it’s the same lens. Based on reviews, the Sigma seems to be a bit less in every way (size, weight, cost, reach, iq) but I never used it. At that price point I might go with Fuji 70-300 which I also had and loved.
For the crazy zoom range and reach that it provides, image quality and portability, the price is very interesting!
Having to have the latest camera is a bit disappointing, making the kit very expensive to adquire.
Nice to see other manufacturers still relevant, not just the usual three suspects.
Hey Chris, just for a giggle I wonder how the lens would perform as a 'super macro' lens at the 600mm setting with the Raynox 250 Macro Adapter fitted?!
Hey Christopher nice job
Can you please do a comparison between sigma
70-200 f2.8 sports versus canon rf 70-200 f2.8 on a canon r5 body
I really need your help in making the best decision It was after your reviews i bought 3 sigma art lenses
Thank you so much
nice video mate!
Can we hace sony 50mm f2.8 macro? :D
I'm really hoping some manufacturer introduces a stabilised 600 mm f5.6 lens with fast AF to Fuji X mount. Something that's still manageable and not obscenely expensive. Nikon has the right idea with their phase fresnel optics.
Any comparisons between 200mm f2 vs 150-600 or 100-400 abilty to capture detail of a distant subjuct? Would the ultra sharp 200 f2, on a high resolution sensor like on xt5, be able to retain more detail than either zoom at the 300-400mm range when capturing the same subject? I'm wondering how far the superior sharpness of the 200 f2 can let you digitally zoom in post and still come out ahead of zoom lens.
Hi Chris, which is better between Fujifilm 150-600 mm and Tamron 150-600mm G2?
This lens is now selling at $1599 US. Fujifilm has a $400 rebate. Is this price considered a good price to performance ratio?
IMO, at that price, heck yes
Where'd u find crystal pepsi. I got excited seeing that lol
Please, bear with me due I am very new into all this. I wonder how is it possible that the Sony DSC RX10 IV has a Zeiss telefoto lens of 600 mm with an aperture between 2.8 to 4 all the way zoomed in and the clarity of this lens is so impressive! Watching such lens here makes me really confused about how come that happens to a lense made by Fujifilm and not by Sony. Remember, I am only speculating and trying to learn from the profesionals like the most of you.! I have watched myself through the Sony lens and is really crystaline and makes pictures with all the Zoom in with great quality, just impressive !. ! Well, thanks a lot for the video, greetings from Germany! Alfredo
Would've been nice to test with the X-T3 though
Interesting how there's virtually 0 CA, compared to the Tamron 150-500, but seemingly lower contrast at higher apertures
This is on my Xmas list. Hoping Santa 🎅🏼 comes through, but I’ll probably just end up with my usual lump of coal. 😢
Now compare it with Tamron 150-500mm
Reminds me of the canon 400/5.6, even the same FL:aperture ratio, still wish it was a 6.3, nikon's is only 300g heavier
I need a bigger aperture because I want to spy on my neighbors at night at 2.8. This lens has amazing image quality.
*Canon:* Affordable lens? Best I can do is one or multiple of kidneys!
Can you ask to Fujifilm UK for some GFX glass?
But can it do Sun star
@00:28 fuji crop is 1.5 time right? Why the equivalent is 228mm? To 912mm? Where did this very little extra came from
Fuji crop is 1.52
@@djstucFuji crop is 1.52
Fuji crop is 1.52x, not 1.5x
Shot it an an airshow with an X-T5, pretty horendous for tracking. Also crazy vignetting.
Eline sağlık
The XH-2s should have been the body to test such lens...
Nice review!
Was considering this lens along with X-H2, but when I saw a6700 coming and good promo for sony 200-600 which was half the price of the XF150-600, so I gone for the sony. After this review I see that I have nothing to regret. Fuji is a bit overpriced in my opinion.
So you paid less for a far worse camera and lens but say Fuji overpriced 🤔
@@ZeLoShady Well, in my country difference was 3000$ for a6700+200-600 vs 4550$ for X-T5+XF150-600 at time of pruchase.
Also maybe in your perspective it is far worse, no idea how you use it.
In my use case it isn't, image quality on XF150-600 with X-T5 looks dissapointing and for sure not worth additional 1550$ for setup, especially that XF150-600 is 3 years younger than sony 200-600, also AF performance is worse and as usually fuji can't fix their weird stepping effect while using focusing ring.
If u talk about body and lens retro look, then yes, I can agree, sony looks like a crap comparing to fuji.
@@Patrick-vi9xr What is disappointing about the image quality to you? Between the two bodies, the XT-5 is 100% the better camera. Better sensor, far more features, better build. I agree on the autofocus not being quite as good (can be improved with software updates, Fuji is great at those) and the stepping is not great. What's the difference in price without a discount on the lens?
@@ZeLoShady Difference in price still huge even without discount, also fuji discounts are super rare, while sony is discounted few times a year.
Dissapointing is sharpness, especially corners on all focals, even stopped down have ghost effect with average contrast on whole image, also don't know why but fuji images looks so digital, probably x-trans thing. I think all telephoto lenses are most dissapointing part in fuji system, their only serious lenses are between 24mm to 90mm focal length.
@@ZeLoShady It's almost 2 years. Does the X-H2S have touch to track? Canon implemented that in 2017 in entry level DSLRs. Fuji couldn't even do it after 1 year+. It exists in photo mode and they didn't do a simple copy paste of coding.
That looks indeed like a great lense, even if not fully made for thoses insane 40MP sensors.
But i still think that lense is too big and cost too much, i mean for the same price/weight you can have the sony 200-600 or nikon 180-600 both at 5.6-6.3 and put them on APS-C cameras if you really need the extra reach with faster aperture... the only real good thing for that lense ( compared to thoses two ) comes from being a fuji lense, so THE APS-C brand, let's just hope for them that sony and nikon wont catch up too fast ( the A6700 being already really good and we still wait for the Z D500 from nikon ) ^^
You have a lot of advantages using Fuji aps-c bodies with this lens. You can use the pre-shot feature for example.
For extreme telephoto reach, pixel density matters, too. That XT-5 at 40MP effectively has better angular resolution than anything Sony or Nikon offer.
@@seth094978that would just mean that you get much grainier photos compared to a 45mp full frame sensor
@@djstucAt the same field of view the xt-5 would obviously be grainier due to the much smaller pixel size. You get more reach with apsc crop but you sacrifice iso performance and dynamic range. It is a great budget option, but a more expensive full frame setup with a 600mm f4 and some teleconverters would ofc be better. And don’t make such assumptions about someone who you’ve never met.
@@djstuc I have been doing wildlife, landscape, event photography for a few years now. I have experimented with cameras from different systems (Canon, Sony, Nikon) mainly through loaned gear for shoots and bought and sold several lenses. I’m just saying that I don’t fully agree with what the person I was replying to was saying. While it is an appealing budget setup for those that need extreme reach like for wildlife, it does not actually outperform flagship setups from Sony or Nikon in most cases.
I have used apsc cameras for wildlife before and my main grudge with these cameras is that once I start pushing the iso in bad lighting, the image falls apart much faster. Especially with the dark f8 maximum aperture of the Fuji lens I would say that it’ll actually be less versatile in bad lighting compared to a regular 24 or 32mp apsc camera with a f6.3 lens.
Xt5 is not Fast as Xh2s in autofocus test.
Xh2s in autofocus continuous is twice Fast and 26mp sensor don't have diffraction problems at F11
It does - APS-C sensor size with 26mp is diffraction limited from f/8, while at 40MP from f/6.3
@@quikee9195 you can't see that you haven't seen Christopher Frost's tests
X-H2s is not twice as fast, nobody said or demonstrated that. Honest reviewers said it’s a little bit faster….
Thank you, you saved me a lot of money.
I’m just getting into photography and I was considering the xt-5 with the 150-600 from Fuji but I think based on this showing I may be better off going with the sony a6700 with the 70-350 (the 70-350 is the highest focal length aps-c option from sony). I like to have more resolution and more focal length but I feel like it is disappointing to lose my detail because the lens is not holding up. The a6700 only offers 26 megapixels but since I also plan on shooting quite a bit of low light I think the sony is the better choice. All I have to decide now is whether I go with the 70-350 or the full frame 150-600 sigma at the expense of how huge it is comparatively. Thanks for the review as always.
Wish these tests were done on the 26MP sensor since more people will probably be using a 26MP sensor like xt4 or xh2s
I own the lens and with 26 megapixels on xh2S it's twice as fast as xt5 in continuous autofocus and you don't have any diffraction problem at f11 really it's an excellent zoom you can use it handheld without any problem even at 800mm you need a monopod to use it as a support while waiting to shoot otherwise keeping the camera always in your hand you get tired of your arms
The reason is why they made a low Light lens with f8 why they have to launch already confirmed fixed lens 300 f2.8 400 F4 500 f5.6 compatible with the 200 f2 teleconverter.
If they had made a zoom F4 f5.6 lens then it would get bigger and they could no longer justify the supertele fixes.
@@dangir1783 I already own the H2S setup with this lens haha. Would be more interested to see tests with the 26MP sensor since I used to have the Sony 200-600 which based on this test seems sharper at 600mm @F8. Either way the lens is great. The H2S af isn't there for me yet though.
@@dangir1783 well, it is the Full Frame equivalent of a 225-900mm F/8-11 which makes it a solid option compared to canon's 200-800 F/5.6-9, but too different from soy's 200-600 or nikon's 180-600 which are both much faster. I think fuji should make a reasonnably priced 120-400 F/4-4.5 to attract more wildlife photographers. And the optical design would be the equivalent of a full frame 180-600 F/5.6-6.3, with a 0,67x Focal Reducer integrated.
@@pierrevilley6675 Something like the OM 150-400...
NO ZOOM ZOOM ZOOM!!!? LAL BIRDS BIRDS BIRDS
I feel like you should do the chart tests with pixel shift. It would show the limit of the lens' resolving ability more, and that would be cool as sensors get better and better into the future.
I think this lens is due to the physical effects of diffraction.
Oh, and diffraction must be due to the physical effects of chrisfrostian.
Tamron and Sigma start at f4
If you're referring to the 150-500 and 100-400 (respectively) offerings for Fujifilm, they start at f5.
I recently switched from Fuji to Nikon, and this lens was never an option for me.
It's not "that" sharp (In dustin abbots comparison, even the sigma 100-400 was sharper) and seriously expensive where I live. Even the Sony 200-600 and Nikon 180-600 lenses are cheaper. Sure, it's lighter, but imo they should've made it f/6.3 like the competition, and make a new and improved 100-400 mk2, for those who want it light. Makes no sense having a 40 MP APS-C sensor and offering f/8 on the only lens that goes to 600mm. I got the Tamron 150-500 instead, much cheaper, at least as sharp, and smaller, with the trade-off of being 100mm short.
So, have you actually used the 150-600 in real life, on a 40mpx camera, or are you basing your statements solely on Internet 'reviews'?
@@peterjackhandy Haven't used it because of the mentioned reviews. Check Dustin Abbotts test of the Sigma 100-400 for fuji, he's comparing both lenses and even the cheap Sigma is significantly sharper than the Fuji XF 150-600.
Wow - 900mm for only 2 grand - this will be a bestselling lens and sold-out everywhere !
I own this lens and love it. But having seen and used the Nikon 180-600....I can't help but feel this lens is overpriced and could been a bit brighter.
Just to clear up some diffraction myths ..diffraction is a optical quality of the lens and has nothing to do with how many megger pixels you have.. if you have say a 24 mp and a 40mp both APS-c and the image are viewed at the same size say 20x30 the diffraction will appear the same (although the 40mp may render the blur more accurately but the amount of blur will be the same)..a lens will have a set amount of diffraction and can be thought of the same way as camera shake, as you enlarge the image it will become more apparent, now if you made a print 20x30 from 40mp and then a bigger print from 24 mp say 40x60, the image from the smaller MP sensor the diffraction blur will more apparent
That's not true it has nothing to do with the lens as a whole - just the aperture used. Diffraction is a physical phenomenon, that affects light traveling through an opening and is a consequence of wave properties of light (see single slit experiment). The smaller the opening (in camera - the aperture) the bigger the Airy disk become (the area of probability that the photon from the same source is hitting the surface). So what does this mean when the Airi disk hits the sensor - nothing as long the pixel size is bigger than the Airi disk. When the Airi disk is bigger than the pixel size it means that the light from the same source is affecting not just one pixel, but also the surrounding pixels - loss of resolution. So as the sensor size is constant the number of 40MP is bigger than 26MP - this effectively means that the size of the 40MP sensor's pixel is smaller than the size of 26MP sensor's pixel, and thus you can use smaller apertures with a 26MP sensor before you see the effects of diffraction (so loss of resolution, because of size of the Airi disk is bigger than the size of a single pixel) than with 40MP sensor.
What you fail to take into account in you example is that the viewing method - either a screen or a printed photo has a certain max resolution as well and so does the eyes have a resolution limit from a where you can't see more details from a certain viewing distance. In your example those resolution limits are the one that are both limiting you to notice the effects of diffraction, not that the diffraction had no effect on the image.
@@quikee9195 what you say is not incorrect ..however with photography today and practical use and the much higher resolutions we have today what I say stands,, that if say the image of a 24MP and a 40 MP are viewed at the SAME SIZE diffraction will appear the same ..the reason is the size of the Airi disc it will fit over many pixels at 24MP ..now as 1 of the parameters for determining the size of the Airi disc is the distance to the objects being photographed we could keep moving the object further away until it was smaller than the pixels but by the time that happened atmospheric haze and other optical lens anomalies will have gotten in the way and also we would have to view the image so large as to be impractical. so in practical terms and all things being equal 2 photos the same size from 24 and 40MP will appear to have the same diffraction
I'll confess I'm a bit disappointed by these specs after waiting so long to see what Fuji would produce as a super telephoto. I've used the Nikon 200-500 f5.6 a lot. Now that lens is hand-holdable. It costs (last time I looked) about $1,200. I get that Fuji wanted to make a compact lens. But you'd imagine, given that they don't have to cover a 35mm image circle that they could have had a max of f6.3 and still been quite a bit smaller than that Nikon lens - or the various other competitor camera options. That would presumably have allowed for sharper images wide-open at the long end.
I'm slightly baffled by the compromises they've decided to make on a lens that is certainly not budget.
Why mention “diffraction” or “dark” aperture so much? Every super zoom out there is coming in around f/5.6-f/9 and diffraction effects FF as well (FF has only recently caught up to the pixel density of an XT3). Fuji is just giving you the lightest lens with the longest reach-and made in Japan. Id love to see how Nikon or canons new superzooms perform on their APS-C bodies. We already know the Sony 200-600 didn’t hold up very well. They’re also bigger and heavier and not quite as well made.
As an actual owner of this lens on an XT3 I can say quite confidently that the autofocus performance is excellent and the image quality is outstanding, I’ve done both wildlife and portraits with it. The pixel density of the XT5 is 90-100mp in “ff equivalent” terms and that it performs this well with virtually no distortion and gorgeous color is insane. After shooting a lot of smaller birds at close range I’d want f/8-f/11 anyway otherwise you run into problems with out of focus beaks or eyes and so on. I don’t see the lower contrast issue on my lens either, I wonder if you had a preset or film sim like eterna turned on when looking at the RAW. In any case “real life” image quality with this lens is impacted far more by your own hand shakiness, atmospheric distortion, lighting, focus, shutter speed, etc etc.
I think it has a magnesium body (not plastic) and the white paint job legit keeps the lens cool to the touch in hot weather-holy crap my black red badges get super hot in the summer in direct sun. Manual focus/focus limiting and pre-shot options + 20fps on an XT3 make this setup a total beast. The 40mp sensor is nice but the readout is quite a lot worse-to benefit from electronic shutters xt3/4/H2S still the way to go. If Fuji puts a grip and a stacked 26mp sensor into the XT6 I’d buy it for sure.
My only critique would be that a closer mfd would have been useful for insects or just as a quality of life upgrade. Fixed aperture for manual shooting is also better/easier, and I’d have put up with more weight to have it. OIS on XT3 is great but with no switch I had to assign an on/off to a button-in particular because unlike what Fuji says it seemed to not sense a tripod or attempts to pan. Perhaps only IBIS bodies can do that. Still, setting with a button is faster than a switch, in practice, so it’s an OK trade off.
XT-3 has the same pixel density as a ~60 MP Full frame so it doesn't have as big diffraction, contrast and sharpness issues as the XT-5 (which receives the exact same image from the lens, but hasn't enough resolution to see those flaws), the point of showing diffraction issues just underlines the fact that APSC is tickling the limits of physics, whereas Full Frame still has a room for bigger resolution than what's already out. And super zooms don't come around F/9 on the long end, but more often at F/6.3 which is a stop faster. If you take into account that APSC ISO performance is around a stop worse than Full Frame (2.3 times worse to be exact), this Lens is the full frame equivalent of a 225-900 F/8,5-12,1. Whereas Nikon's 180-600 mounted on an APSC would be a 270-900 F/8,5-9,45 equivalent, so you would get the same reach at about the same price, but almost 1 stop faster on the long end. And judging by the few tests available, the nikon is much sharper than its sony counterpart.
@@pierrevilley6675 If you care about "equivalencies", you should compare the FF "superzooms" to the Fuji 100-400, which roughly matches the zoom range of the FF options (but has a better wide end) and is "faster" at f/4.5-f/5.6. FWIW the 150-600 is @f/7.1 at 600mm "equivalent", so it is only about 1/3rd of a stop "slower". The new Canon is f/9 @ 800mm. All of the competition for this lens need teleconvertors to match the reach, which comes at a cost.
ISO performance depends on what cameras you are comparing to - the XT3 holds up real well against the D850/D500, and matches/beats the R7 and new 6700. SOME FF cameras might be a stop or so better, but that just isn't a lot - certainly not for the asking price sometimes. Good light is way more important.
"Theoretical" limits are just that - theoretical. In practice, better glass almost always seems to yield better results. Perhaps the actual technology still has a way to go. In any case don't get too hung up on specs and reviews that "measure" resolution in flawed ways - there is way more to image quality than that. If "physics" were driving these companies, they'd either be making far, far larger sensors, or they'd have concluded years ago that there is no real point going over 5mp (since you can't "resolve" more than that at f/22). There also would be no smartphones with cameras, probably. After all what is the what is the point of stuffing tiny sensors with millions of megapixels and lenses into those?
Anyway there are lots of great options out there all of a sudden, but I am just reporting that this is a fantastic lens for Fuji shooters. It deserves way more love than it is getting. I'd stick the Fuji's 26mp sensors more for readout speed/buffer/ISO performance. Diffraction is last on my list of concerns.
Totally agree with your thoughts on an XT6 with a stacked 26mp sensor with even better autofocus than the XH2S. Even though it's not popular, I'd like to see them do a flippy screen for it too, but I'm an X-T4 user (which I will never sell), so I would say that;).
And ppl complain about f9 on canon zoom lens... hahahaha this one has less reach yet max out at f8 at the longest range not to mention on an apsc sensor which bump up the ISO might cause noisier image
Thankyou for not testing it on your X-T3
A strange product. There seem to be only two useful apertures on this lens.
Flaring test seemed rushed and contradictory. I know it is a probably small issue on such a lens, but that flaring looked awful and yet was dismissed quickly.
.
Think I'll pass 🙂
f8 🤣
One small note I could add is maybe doing a comparison with your own XT3 as comparison to the XT5 to give a better example of how much diffraction the 40mp sensor will cause to lenses like these vs older bodies or the XH2s/XS20.
if you view a 24MP and a 40MP image at the same size say 30x20 the diffraction appears the same
The new sensor doesn't cause diffraction, it just makes it visible at a wider aperture.
@@77appyi you're right, but we want to know if its worth to buy 40mpix for better cropping options, if diffraction kills it and there only tiny improvement then better to save money and stay with X-T4 or buy cheaper X-S20
Fujifilm X-Trans makes the Fuji system unacceptable for many
Many being, nerds who live on message boards who obsess over nonsense. People in the real world, it’s just fine
What a poor lens. But that’s ok, Fuji is a no-go for bird photography. Simply horrible. Fuji is just a joke and for kids to play around.
You sound like a Sony shooter…
What a poor comment